The argument is that in many cases, the riders were double dipping (a friend or child was actually the primary rider on the second bike).This thread is 19 pages long and I don't have the time to leaf through them all looking for an answer to this, so I'll ask here:
Multiple-bikes in a single-rider household
I hate that the premium I pay for each bike seems to assume that this is the only bike ridden. To use an example, suppose I have a BMW fetish and bought 2 identical S1000RRs, one in red and one in blue. I would presumably be paying the insurance company $2000/yr (e.g.) for each bike even though only one would only ever be used at any given time.
I feel like the owner should be charged a premium for things like liability and SABs and UM etc once -- reflecting the fact that when he's out there and being a risk and being at risk, he's on one bike while the other snoozes under a cover in the garage -- while the comprehensive coverage for each bike remain as is.
Perhaps that single, umbrella premium, is set to be the highest of the bikes in the stable so that you're covered in every possible risk scenario. So a guy with an S1000RR and a DRZ400 pays an umbrella premium equal to the riskiest bike -- the S1000, in this case -- only. So, say, $1500 for the liability, SABs etc on the S1000RR instead of $1500 for the S1000RR and another $600 for the DRZ; other line items on the policy cover comprehensive for each bike singly.
This way things are currently done feels like "double dipping" by insurance companies. Surely this can be changed?
It would seem simple enough to create a form where you acknowledge that you are the only person that rides your bikes and no other person is covered. Then you just pay liability for the most expensive ride plus comp on all bikes. The only similar form that currently exists removes a specific operator from a vehicle. I am not sure if a change in law would be required to lock a vehicle to a specific driver.